Slate's Bizbox
hey, wait a minute: The conventional wisdom debunked.

Two's Company; Three's a MarriageIn praise of polygamy.

By Steve Chapman
Posted Tuesday, June 5, 2001, at 3:00 AM ET

With divorce rates high, out-of-wedlock births rampant, and most kids fated to spend at least some of their childhood in single-parent homes, the American family obviously has some serious problems. Tom Green is not one of them.

Whatever else you can say about Green, you can't say he's done anything to weaken the American family. On the contrary, he takes the concept of "family man" to heroic lengths. The 52-year-old Utahan is "married" to five wives, and they have borne him 29 children. Green is a polygamist—one of thousands of so-called Mormon fundamentalists who insist on living in accordance with the church's original practice. And that is what led to his recent conviction on four counts of bigamy, which could send him to prison for 25 years.

Conservatives, who have not been heard defending Green, might find a lot to like in him. He's a devout Christian who asks only to be left alone to practice his faith. His household conforms to a model that has prevailed in much of the world for much of human history. Polygamy has ample sanction in the Bible, having been practiced by King David and King Solomon, the latter of whom had 700 wives. It also has deep roots in the ultra-wholesome Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Early Mormon leader Brigham Young fathered scores of children by his more than 20 wives. The church abandoned plural marriage in 1890 in the face of the federal government's fierce efforts to stamp it out. Today, however, the church prescribes excommunication for anyone practicing polygamy. But not all Mormons think the government needs to take action. Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt—who says his "great-great-great grandfather had many families"—has given a state appointment to a leader from a polygamist community, not to mention suggesting that plural marriage might be a constitutionally protected exercise of religious freedom.

Most Americans are marital Unitarians—believing in, at most, one spouse. To any male acquainted with marriage, a houseful of wives sounds less like a nonstop orgy than an endless siege of PMS. The attractions are even slimmer for women—most of whom, given the option of having 20 percent of a particular husband, would doubtless think that was 20 percent too much. Sharing a man and a home with several other women sounds about as alluring as repeal of the 19th Amendment. As for offspring, most parents lose enough sleep over how to put two or three children through college. Twenty-nine would induce howling terror.

But the fact that it will always be a minority taste doesn't explain why plural marriage should be illegal. Given the current state of sexual and social mores in America, after all, what used to be the scandalous element of polygamy—one man enjoying the sexual favors of multiple women—barely qualifies as PG-13. Serial polygamy, which is what you might call marrying and then divorcing one person after another, has also become commonplace. No law prevents a man from having five sexual partners or 500. Hugh Hefner, fueled by Viagra, has multiple girlfriends sharing his bed in the Playboy mansion, but no prosecutor has seen fit to indict him. Countless professional athletes leave trails of illegitimate children from coast to coast without suffering so much as a minor scandal.

The law, in short, doesn't prevent a man from being licentious, promiscuous, irresponsible, and thoroughly goatish. Had Green just shacked up with a harem of willing single women, no one would have cared. But when he lives as a dutiful husband to five women in a collection of trailer homes in the Utah desert, he somehow presents a dire threat to our social foundation. This brings to mind heterosexuals accusing homosexuals of undermining marriage, even as heterosexuals have left it in tatters. The argument for allowing polygamy has much in common with the argument for letting gays enter into matrimony. If consenting adults who prefer polygamy can do everything else a husband and wife can do—have sex, live together, buy property, and bring up children jointly—why should they be prohibited from legally committing themselves to the solemn duties that attach to marriage? How is society worse off if these informal relationships are formalized and pushed toward permanence?

Critics have a ready answer: because polygamy, as currently (and surreptitiously) practiced in Utah and neighboring states has been rife with abuses—including forced marriages, sexual exploitation of minors, and welfare dependency. Green is a prime example: He married one of his wives when she was 13, and he was convicted not only of bigamy but of criminal nonsupport for failing to repay the state more than $50,000 in welfare benefits for his children. Other male polygamists have been convicted of child abuse and incest. A Salt Lake Tribune investigation found that a polygamous community on the Utah-Arizona border has one of the highest rates of welfare participation in the West.

But such unsavory conduct stems partly from the fact that when polygamy is illegal, the only people likely to practice it are nut cases and people with a deep-seated contempt for authority. Plural marriage, in this group, may be just one of many expressions of aggressive noncomformity. If the practice were legally permitted, on the other hand, it would be more likely to attract people with a strong law-abiding disposition. The need to stay under the radar of law enforcement agencies also breeds abuse by discouraging its victims from going to the authorities. Legalizing the practice would bring polygamists out from underground, making it easier to combat the real evils found in some plural marriages. Those who persist in such abuses can be prosecuted along with all the other pedophiles and welfare frauds—the vast majority of whom, it will surprise you to learn, are non-polygamous.

But what state would play the role of social pioneer? In Utah (along with Arizona and New Mexico), the state constitution has a provision forbidding polygamy that is "irrevocable without the consent of the United States"—which is not likely to be forthcoming. But Douglas Laycock, a religious-freedom authority at the University of Texas law school, says the restriction is clearly unconstitutional—leaving Utah free to repeal the ban anytime it wants.

Anti-polygamy laws can also be challenged as a violation of the privacy rights upheld in a series of Supreme Court cases, including Roe v. Wade. In 1986, the court rejected a claim that these decisions had fatally undermined laws against sodomy. Why? Because, unlike cases involving bans on contraceptive sales and abortion, "no connection between family, marriage, or procreation on the one hand and homosexual activity on the other has been demonstrated." With polygamy, by contrast, the connections are inescapable: "It involves family, it involves marriage, and it involves a whole lot of reproduction," says Laycock.

Nor is that the only basis for a constitutional challenge. In 1996, the Supreme Court court struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment prohibiting local governments from passing laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. The justices said the measure was illegal because it targeted one group, gays, for unfavorable treatment. No less an authority than Justice Antonin Scalia, writing in dissent, said the reasoning casts serious doubt on state constitutional bans on plural marriage. Polygamists, he wrote, "have been 'singled out' by these provisions for much more severe treatment than merely denial of favored status; and that treatment can only be changed by amendment of the state constitutions. The court's disposition today suggests that these provisions are unconstitutional, and that polygamy must be permitted in these states."

Scalia's prediction notwithstanding, the courts aren't likely to lead the way to tolerance of polygamy. So that's up to Utah, Arizona, or another of those states where polygamists have persisted in following their beliefs despite legal and social ostracism. The history of American society in recent years has been the rapid expansion of diversity—and the broad acceptance of different cultures, beliefs, and customs. Why should an ancient form of marriage remain beyond the pale? In our time, the American family has been transformed in all sorts of ways, many of them malign. Next to those changes, Tom Green is no threat.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Steve Chapman is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Comments From The Fray:


[Notes from the Fray Editor: There were many great posts and threads—look for the checks and stars, or try Jeff on why gay marriage is different, or Nate Briggs from Salt Lake City: "Green wants to have sex with teenagers and have the taxpayers of the state pay for the upbringing of his children--while covering the whole operation with a smokescreen laid from the traditions of the pioneers." Matthew Adinaro says it is no coincidence that "no polygamous society has regularly had the economic success, creative accomplishments, and political freedoms that the monogamous West has had." Android has some recommended reading. And here, fittingly, are some posts from women. Many readers made similar points on polygamy, but the first sentence from First Wife, below, was unique:]


My husband and I would gladly marry a dear friend who fits beautifully into our lives and those of our children. She stimulates me intellectually, is talented, funny and generous, provides love and understanding to all, gives one or the other of us a break from midnight murmurings of children in dream, and would be as good a wife as I could wish.

Ah, but there's the rub. I must grant that polygamy, as practiced most commonly, is not a matter of three (or more) people marrying, but of one person having multiple spouses. Such a model makes little or no sense. Everyone in a polygamous relationship should have a say in who is welcomed into the family. In my mind, a woman should have final say if the additional person is female, just as a man should have final say if the additional person is male. After all, we know best what we are like and what qualities we can tolerate in those of our gender with whom we must share space (among other things).

I take issue with Tom Green's form of polygamy because, having seen footage of his living arrangements, I don't believe he is providing good, or even adequate, care for his wives and children. In other countries where polygamy is sanctioned, you must be able to keep your wives in comfort, at the very least. I do not see that in Green's arrangements. If Utah was wise, it would have prosecuted Green on his failure to provide adequate care for his children, and left the religion question lie. You can't win on religion in the U.S. courts, for which I thank God (and the politicians who made it so).

--First Wife

(To reply, click here.)


Polygamy (and polyandry) won't ever catch on in the U.S., which would make the genetic arguments moot. Americans don't like to share. It doesn't meet the needs (including sexual needs) of most women, although apparently Tom Green has deluded himself (and perhaps his wives) into believing otherwise. Every time one adds a commitment, there is less time and energy available for the previous ones.

But it will appeal to some. It seems like an ideal institution for some traditional people seeking to ward off loneliness and angst in a modern world. It's the ultimate rejection of feminism and echoes the call for more submissive women being heard in some quarters recently. For the "traditional" male not supposed to show emotion around other males, lots of females around to be sympathetic and attentive, and yet the ultimate feeling of power. For the females, built-in friendships and support. For all those children, many playmates. There's little leisure time available to think, plan, and worry. The women need not worry about unknown partners outside marriage. The male isn't worried about competition: too many children keeping the wives all busy, and they're keeping an eye on each other.

--LT

(To reply, click here.)


Polygamy? Gay marrige? Mere footnotes. Our marriage and domestic relations laws ought to be reworked from the ground up, without limitation as to the gender, the number of parties, or the duration of the family entity that is formed.

The traditional one man/one/woman marriage should certainly be an option - perhaps most people would still choose a traditionl relationship. Still, notwithstanding Bower v. Gartner, the traditional marriage is a special right and ought to be held unconstitutional if there are going to be equal rights.

It's not just polygamy or gay marriage - how about a troika? How about a marriage based on a corporate format, with each member having shares of stock, and, subject to certain forms of approval, new members being added with grants or sales of stock. How about the various forms of partnership or limited liability company? A family could double as a business, as well! Why not?

--Joann Prinzivalli

(To reply, click here.)

 (6/5)